Skip to main content
Glama

Guild Wars 2

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by detailing the two verification pipelines, return verdict types, and the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check didn't happen) and 'unsupported'. It even warns about not presenting could_not_verify as evidence, which is critical for safe invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Despite being lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose: examples, usage, pipeline, return values, and critical caveats. The description is well-structured and front-loaded with natural-language triggers, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return payload (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and the failure modes. It covers both financial and non-financial claim handling, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: it includes examples for the claim and mentions tolerance usage (hallucination detection) that already appears in the schema. No substantial new semantic details are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It provides multiple trigger examples and distinguishes itself as a single-call replacement for a 4-6 call pipeline, setting it apart from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', and further clarifies the two distinct paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for anything else). It also hints at an alternative (replacing sequential calls), giving clear when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Guild Wars 2 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes two unrelated domains (Guild Wars 2 endpoints and a broad Pipeworx data-research suite), and within each there are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical, commerce_prices vs guild_wars_2_item_price vs commerce_listings overlap on Trading Post data, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route questions to the same source catalog. An agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent pattern: some are bare nouns (achievements, currencies, quaggans, worlds, build), some are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), some are ask_* (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and some are compound names (polymarket_kalshi_spread, guild_wars_2_item_price). Minor deviations would be fine, but this is a genuine mix of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range, and the majority are unrelated to the 'Guild Wars 2' server name (only ~11 tools are GW2 API endpoints; the rest are Pipeworx data-research/meta tools). This feels like two or three servers merged into one.

Completeness2/5

For a Guild Wars 2 server, the coverage is thin: it has items, prices, achievements, worlds, and WvW, but no recipes, guilds, characters, skills, maps, or PvE content. For the broader data-research domain implied by most tools, the surface is sprawling but still lacks depth in several areas. The result is a set that is neither complete for GW2 nor coherently scoped for anything else.

Resources